coming up this hour on r t as disaster relief crews pick up the pieces of cities ravaged by hurricane sandy homeland security secretary janet napolitano says there's an even bigger storm brewing in this one could react rather wreak havoc on the entire country i'll tell you what it is just a minute. a bomb away just before we lose jobs to china. to our economy. it's not you have to worry about. the street but i bet you're sick of seeing attack ads like this plaguing television screens and radio dials and it turns out the majority of americans think negative ads hurt the political process rather than help break down the numbers and question why elections have gotten so nasty in recent years. plus in the us the rule of law only goes as

far as the supreme court allows it and guantanamo bay is a long way from home coming up will tell you how the government is making up laws as it goes and breaking its own rules as it sees fit. it's thursday november first i am liz wahl and you're watching r t. o's cities along the east coast today continuing to pick up the pieces in the aftermath of hurricane sandy but it's oracle storm has caused massive destruction to u.s. infrastructure it's projected to cost tens of billions of dollars now homeland security is using sandy as proof that the u.s. needs to beef up cyber security protections homeland security janet secretary janet napolitano said yesterday quote if you think that a critical systems attack that takes down the utility even for

a few hours is not serious just look at what is. happening now that mother nature has taken out intelligence so is superstorm sandy indeed proof that the u.s. infrastructure is vulnerable to cyber attacks to discuss this and more our team producer and blake joins us now hi there andrew. it's going well nice to have you broadband rather than actually i wish you were in the studio but well there must be you're smiling face but thank you thank you very nice and now i write sellout to start off i want to ask you and your of it makes sense to compare the threat of a hurricane to the threat of cyber attacks you know absolutely and it's so great that yesterday yesterday morning actually we were sitting around the r.t. america studios and we said. it almost looks like this would be exactly what one of these cyber attacks would do look what we've seen with sandy and we wrote

something yesterday actually saying yes this is exactly what these cyber attacks could do the same star projects that we're waging in other countries easily could happen in the united states in create the kind of devastation that is kind of been considered unthinkable but then sandy came removed and we've seen billions upon billions of dollars worth of damage up and down these codes so it not only is it very possible that a cyber attack could create this kind of havoc but it does point i would say it's even likely given that the united states is all but certainly behind server attacks on other nations so what we've seen the last few days trying to like secretary napolitano said is really just a taste of what we could expect if the cyber wars that we keep getting ourselves into turned back around and start hitting us so you don't think it's farfetched for an apology to compare a natural disaster to a disaster in cyberspace now i am i would never go and see that's the part of

homeland security is overly cautious or. d.h.s.s. kind of every now and then like the hyperbola is just a tad. i think that's it's pretty pretty honest i'm a human this is the same agency who is giving out millions of dollars right now so that law enforcement agencies across the country can get surveillance drones so d.h. asked you know it's it seems almost cliche to say that the d.h.s.s. are kind of the bad guys at this point because they're doing things more than just homeland security i mean just the other day in san francisco they confiscated something like eleven hundred counterfeit t. shirts that were being sold outside of the giant stadium so. yeah you don't want to say that they're just blowing this out of proportion. but. they're really not so let's not say that like if you look at it when the cyber attacks can do you like if you if you know what you're doing you can wipe down every a.t.m. in the country you can wipe out every telecommunication provider you can wipe the

lexical grid completely you can wreak havoc on the entire country by polluting its water supply shutting down its water supply the sensually rendering the entire infrastructure in place useless that could be in theory done by a cyber attack and let's look at what happened just over the last couple of days i mean in new york city they're expecting i've the last estimate i heard was sixty billion dollars worth of damage in new york because no one can do anything i mean you see if you've been on twitter you've been on facebook last couple of days and you know anyone in new york city you've heard of there there are seemingly endless complaints said oh oh god i can't get on the subway what do i do now or oh gosh i don't have power how. how me going communicate with the world no no it's the same thing that you would expect these hackers to do and it's very possible that it will and is going to happen and like i said go back and look at stocks not look at blame

look at these viruses that have been infecting iranian kids. systems and americas are certainly to blame for those according to experts from around the world and certainly the scenario that you just described sounds very scary and this day and age and of course government officials are are kind of are ringing the warning bells on these cyber affairs and you know we had a congressman that compared to this threat to the next to pearl harbor so a lot of extreme language being used to to portray exactly how how serious this threat as of course and are we do have an election coming up in just a few days do you think cybersecurity proving to be a bipartisan issue we know that it is on the top of the agenda for president obama . what a president romney can we assume that would also be on the top of his agenda i mean we can assume that he's commented very very sparingly as far as what he wants to do

with cybersecurity what he has said is pretty much been echoing the same sentiments step president obama has already had just oh yes we need to ramp up our cyber security what are we going to do when the bad guys come. but i mean. it's going to happen regardless like you said even though it's not just politicians the other day defense secretary leon panetta said that this is a pre nine eleven moment so we're not even chilling with the free pearl harbor anymore this is a this is a big time apparently so everyone is pushing for this the pentagon is pushing for cyber security legislation the house and the senate are pushing for cyber security legislation the white house has drafted a cyber security executive order president obama has received it and is just waiting to sign his name and you know i believe we were talking just the other day about what's going to take for president obama just signed an executive order what what catastrophic incident is going to occur when the united states is going to have to go ok sorry congress we're just going to have to sign this order in the

white house pass and we're going to put cyber security legislation on. on the books immediately what will it take and would it take a giant storm causing billions upon billions of dollars worth of damage across the entire country and it might be i mean if i was the president and i was looking for an excuse to pass legislation that would pretty much straight down everyone's internet freedoms i do you start working for that but then again i'm not the president thank god. but yeah i think that no matter what we're going to see it happen sooner or later in the cybersecurity executive order it has been sitting around the white house for it's only two months now and hasn't been signed and we know that obviously it's only in duck session right now. that i guess we're going to have to wait and see about one thing is for a show or cybersecurity is a hot issue and we can expect it to be at the top of the agenda there appreciate you coming on the show and your pleasure as always that was our plane that producer and your blank. well still ahead here on our law and order our lawn disorder out

there for years we've heard about the abuse taking place within the blunt tunnel bay detention facility now we'll tell you about how the government and supreme court is making it legal that story next. governor romney are we both agree we agree we need to bring the tax rates down i felt the same as the president did governor romney i'm glad. you agree let's go back to something the president i agree. that the voters have a choice you wonder who to vote for when romney and obama agree on so many things remember you do have other options come november sixth tune in to see the second round of debates between the major third party candidates right here on r.g.p. . i will write. that i also promise that i think.

all the controversy surrounding guantanamo bay continues this time questions are being raised about what happens at military commissions at the secret base the commissions were authorized by president bush after the nine eleven attacks as a way to try non-u.s. citizens accused of terrorism the relatively new process has some asking if the government is making up the rules as they go along recently the commission had pretrial hearings for collegiate muhammad and other nine eleven terror suspects some issues debated include whether suspects could testify about being tortured while they were detained and a forty second delay between what's. and in the courtroom and what the media hears

for more on the military commission i'm joined by kevin to sola he is a blogger for fire dog lake kevin welcome. so ugly first i want to start off with one of the arguments that the court heard and that is whether the five defendants should be allowed to testify about being tortured the prosecution says this kind of testimony should be blocked because quote there are thoughts of motions ad memories are classified information and it's an interesting argument to say the least when you think about it. i think if we're going to really put this in perspective this is just if you should lower than making somebody go into a courtroom and testify that two plus two equals five because essentially what they're saying is that they have control over a person's thoughts and experiences and and i don't think any government should be able to say they control any person's mind and so it's a really a for an argument that they're putting forward and i think it's

a legally tenuous argument out of the a.c.l.u. opposes the argument the united states is putting forward in the courtroom here and and so i think that people should really consider what it looks like. the system the supposed to be fair and i don't know if you can call it fair if you will who were tortured by cia interrogators are allowed to share those experiences in the courtroom. all right but you know the government would argue that classified information should stay classified presumably because making it public could jeopardize national security when you think about that. we're do you if you think of why they're putting this argument forward is it's really to protect the interrogators that were involved in the torture of these terror suspects or prisoners that are at guantanamo it's to protect people from finding out the

details on the message. because of them intelligence methods well these methods are what cheney called enhanced interrogation techniques or torture so it's really all about concealing torture it's really so that you and i and others who want to scrutinize and talk about what the government is doing are able to have that conversation are you saying the goal here is to conceal torture and what really does go on there. at guantanamo bay now of course this raises a lot of issues in terms of oversight and transparency in a place that is already has raised a lot of controversy for shrouded in secrecy. but it actually has more transparency than to compare it to another proceeding i cover regularly not to go too far off on a tangent but i cover the bradley manning the soldier accused of releasing

classified as relation to wiki leaks and in this case what i can say is as a reporter i'm able to read transcripts of the proceedings and know exactly what is going on in the courtroom so i would say it does have some transparency and that came through the through the efforts and actions of congress but you're correct that here we don't really know what's going on with some of these prisoners. so this whole argument of. not being able to testify and testify about your torture experience because they're it relates to their emotions it's an interesting argument what kind of legal standing is there behind it and they have been beyond legal at the very least it seems like there are some moral issues at play here and i'll just to add more to what i'm saying here if the a.c.l.u. is opposing it i would i would suggest that there's

a nice line of of legal theory behind the fact that they are opposing it and i think what we really should focus on here is the fact that there have but he has gone to jail not a single person has gone to jail and i wrote about this and one of the things that i mentioned in writing about these commissions is that there is someone that people should know about his name is john kiriakou he is a person who blew the whistle on torture when bush was in power and the cia had an official policy of torture he was recently convicted and took a plea deal because he was you know the government says he exposed a covert officer named multiple human rights organizations are believed to have known this person and so at the end of the day what people really need to understand is that there aren't any tortures you are in prison and all their lives wrecked but there is one gentleman who is going to be going to prison for possibly

two or more years and he himself is have his entire life wrecked his family has been put into shambles and and driven into poverty because of what he did. have and we don't have very much time left but i do want to ask you these military commissions are relatively new created after nine eleven they give the executive branch much more power than normal do you think it's giving too much power to the president. i think people should really reflect on the fact that this military commission system it is a legal system it was believed before the obama went ahead to have these sort of court proceedings but you could do these in federal courts and there is absolutely no evidence to show that they shouldn't be happening in federal courts currently. kevin and we are at a time but i really appreciate you coming on the show that was kevin gusto ally he is a blogger for firedoglake. well we are just days away from the election now

and campaign ads are in full force and this election we've seen you would growth and the amount of campaign ads many of them are nasty are the corresponding on a saucy a chair going to take a look at the better battle playing out on americans television screens. diaper rash products for me called baby einstein monkeys but we make your dreams come true because this is the main thing i'm feeling in my chest as with these u.s. t.v. networks get paid to cremona another kind of product this election season the next american president i'm broke obama and i approve this message the most expensive election in u.s. history has given rise to new beast of record high political ad but there are countries around the world that if it let it go to the advertising for example go away there are countries that restrict it. france for example but the united states

we are. with these political t.v. commercials hundreds of millions of dollars are being poured into ads that are not just often misleading there are very few restrictions on what america can say short about outright libel there's no requirement that they be truthful but also overwhelmingly negative attack ads that want you to remember certain buzzwords about the candidate's opponents not necessarily what the candidate believes money money money money money money well these are going to limitation on voters is disputed by experts. candidates campaigns are not taking chances and buying up as much air time as possible pouring cash into t.v. time slots this is the first presidential election in the u.s. under a new campaign finance system post the citizens united ruling and twenty ten the supreme court struck down a federal law and by implication all the state laws which prohibited corporations

from spending what's called their treasury funds directly in the election and similarly the similar bans on union spending that's what we do this brought money even closer politics allowing unlimited corporate cash to flow into election campaigns which ads are a big part of the number of political advertisements is up by forty four percent compared to the two previous presidential elections according to the wesley a media project and swing states are getting hit the hardest. maybe days present your eyes a bit over fifteen thousand times in ohio according to the washington post just in the country's capital t.v. stations recently made fifty eight point six million in just one month i think americans should be highly concerned they're going to get their information their news if you will about these candidates from local stations and news stations who are also directly receiving revenue but when it comes to the total amount of cash t.v. networks are making across the u.s. this election season those numbers do. not exist investigative journalist jim has

been covering ad wars for years and says following the pavements to networks is almost impossible what would help investigative reporters in covering the elections is if you actually had numbers that added up and if you actually had a set of hard concrete numbers where everything added up and everything was the same from one source to another this summer despite resistance from t.v. lobbyist the federal communications commission put a rule in place requiring broadcasters to post their political ad files on the government agencies website sascha says this hasn't increased transparency what the f.c.c. shows are the broadcast networks are not cable networks and they only show the fifty largest markets in the united states so there's a huge chunk of t.v. ads that are not covered our democracy take the tiny little fact that there are more than two presidential candidates running for the presidency there are dozens

of other candidates that no one will ever know or hear about because you won't read it in the papers because they can't afford advertisements and they certainly can't afford the millions that it cost to get a commercial on on broadcast television and i introduced myself candidates like libertarian governor gary johnson the networks arguably might be promoting candidates that would generate most of the most donations into their campaigns to be able to pay for this very expensive advertising leading to money being the decisive factor when it comes to americans choosing their leader network so space to special interest groups and big donors for the american people to see essentially selling off the next u.s. president just like a brand of soda only this time the price tag is much higher and they say if you're going to party. some cities are more saturated with campaign ads than others denver is on top with almost ten thousand ads hitting the airwaves there las vegas came in second cleveland ohio third washington d.c.

as you can see made that list norfolk virginia at the bottom with over six thousand political ads for more on the political ads frenzy i'm joined now by christopher chambers he is a journalism professor at georgetown university chris nice to see you to see you all right so a lot of money being pumped into advertising obama spent three hundred forty seven million dollars mitt romney spent more three hundred eighty six million dollars has gone excessive. and i don't even think that's the question anymore i think the question is has it gotten obscene i mean that's just the amount that they've spent and that's just the amount that they themselves their campaigns have amassed and spent that has nothing to do with the super pacs and that has nothing to do with with with other sorts of intangibles so if you look at say an outfit like fox news which is basically giving you know free p.r. to one candidate as and then m.s.n. b.c. to another you're looking at publications either print or on online so you know numerous

breitbart blogs on the right or mother jones and the nation on the left of the man hours there we were talking about billions that could be productively used in the economy so we have no idea how much this really is adding up to so it's beyond obscene it's it's scary scary and you know what these negative attack ads. i want to pull up this poll that shows that the majority of americans actually don't like them there or they find them frustrating and they're sick of them as you can see there seventy eight percent of those polled say that they find the ads frustrating fifty six percent think political campaigns lack civility and respect and sixty sick. per cent then candidates spend more time attacking opponents than talking about the people don't like the negative attack ads they make they wonder why they keep putting them out because they work because it's the old of hundred

year old. comic strip in the newspapers pogo where the guy said we have met the enemy and they are us you know we don't like negative attack ads but we like what we say we don't like them but we like them they appeal to fear they appeal to the reptilian brain stem and then we can we fool ourselves into thinking that it's not directly in brains to front brain the crinkly part that thinks that's talking for us and it isn't so we we say we don't like this stuff in polls but we respond to it because it's not you know it's almost the basically these ads or be the media buys for these campaigns and the super pacs which is the where the real action is you know using the media because the media companies have the same board boards of directors almost the same sources of funding the same institutional investors so they are basically cultivating irrationality because irrationality is a form of control so you get poll results and we don't like negative ads but people

watch them because they go yeah on both sides of the spectrum so you have this vicious cycle because yes one side puts out these vicious attack ads you can't just have the same balance and you're going to fire back and then you just have the going back and forth always the only you know i mean if you want to find purity maybe you see barack obama saying well i'm not going to use this pac money and i don't have the koch brothers i ask regular people over the internet for money to give me fifteen or twenty bucks here and there but it all adds up and goes to the same thing so maybe it has this less of an evil patina less of an evil you know glow to it as say you know the big oil and gas companies and the koch brothers but it's really all going towards the same thing and i think there's a danger of these ads firing back and i'll keep. just sick of them and just tuning out sam just think of it i think people are doing that now but i think the reason people are doing that now is because they've made up their minds because these ads have had their desired effect and now it's just

a zero sum game unless things are going on now you see some of the ads now going towards you know mitt romney the negative ads against romney are you know capitalizing on the president and say new jersey governor chris christie really setting aside politics and romney not or you know people attacking still attacking over benghazi or denigrating the jobs numbers somehow which i don't know how you do that but they are attacking the jobs numbers now so i mean it's it's their news items that are coming out and those ads are glomming on to those but i think most people have made up their minds and they just don't they just want this to be over right there they have to say to hold on for just a few or yes i had mentioned these super pacs i want to ask you to what extent you think super pacs you know made possible by at the citizens united decision contributed to this very negative campaign although there's there is a direct correlation and even people on the right would say that i mean when you

get them behind closed doors and they have because i have closed door now you are available and you know it has it is blown everything wide open this false equivalency that somehow the unions have some kind of countervailing power they don't because we're talking about collective groups of people of little people rather than large chunks and then you know and then on top of that you have the disclosure rules which the f.c.c. . passed and the republicans in the house tried to kill but then they they wised up and said well this doesn't help transparency this might backfire but those aren't going to go into effect until after the election so who cares right you know so these packs of really ginned up a lot of this negative feeling in me that you know it has not the ironic thing is that it has not freed up. the candidates to produce positive they're still creating their own negative ads so it's almost you're almost it's almost you know multiply we are at a time going to cut you off and we don't have it we have to try to say

a positive yes we have right now that was that chris everett chambers a journalism professor at georgetown university and that is going to do it for now we'll see you back here we'll see later. a mission. to critique a should three. four charges three. major and three. three. free. download free brought us to video for your media project free media don carty dot com.

you know how sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom harkin welcomes the big picture. but. it's.